Reviews
Tündérkert (2023)
Real drama and adventure from the Transylvanian world of the 17th century
By the beginning of the 17th century, the country, torn apart, was being squeezed by the Habsburgs from the west and the Turks from the south-east. The last somewhat free bastion of the Hungarians, Transylvania, was wedged between the two powerful empires.
But keeping the peace in Transylvania is not easy. In the past, a murderous struggle for the throne was fought, from which the young and reckless, but otherwise irresponsible and willful - and not least - womanising Báthory Gábor emerged victorious. Báthory's background appears to be broad: the family is ancient and legendary, behind him is the famous/infamous aunt -- later infamous or made infamous throughout Europe -- Erzsébet Báthory; and there is his older, more considered and cultured "master", Gábor Bethlen.
The three nations of Transylvania, the Hungarians, the Szeklers and the Saxons, are hoping that Báthory may finally bring peace to the long-suffering little country.
In this world, it only takes a moment for a friend to become an enemy. It soon becomes apparent that on one side stands Gábor Báthory, a reckless and improvising man of passion, ambition, great passions and conflict. Slowly turning against all of this, we find the calm, educated and more experienced Bethlen, who makes decisions based on principles and experience, whether it is love or political positions.
A spectacularly executed, well-filmed mini-series and not a fantasy, not a Game of Thrones, but a real drama about 17th century Hungarian (Transylvanian) history.
A hídember (2002)
the squeeze of too rich material
It would have been more useful if the truly encyclopaedic wealth of material had been broken up into a 3-4 part mini-series. There is simply too much going on in the almost 40 years of Széchenyi that the film wants to cover, so a lot of prior knowledge is needed for the viewer to understand everything.
The film has already been proclaimed a politically supported and inspired pro-government film by some of the press. Because of this, a hostile atmosphere surrounded the film from the beginning, making it difficult to judge objectively. The accusation that the film is 'falsifying history' comes mainly from the fact that it does not explicitly state that the protagonist committed suicide, but leaves this point open at the end of the film...
Of course, this is now known as a fact, but it is still somewhat "floating" in the cultural history. Perhaps it is because the Austrian court really does drive Széchenyi to a quasi-suicide with the shadow of personal menace and the destruction of the family.